Brief Research On Animal Rights
Table of Contents
Chapter -1: Introduction........................................................................................................... 1
Chapter-2: Cases........................................................................................................................ 5
Chapter-3: Overview on Animal Rights.................................................................................. 7
Chapter-4: Conclusion............................................................................................................ 11
Chapter-5: References............................................................................................................ IV
To fulfil the due purpose to direct the current research study, the following topics would be covered in segregated chapters:
Animal rights is a vast topic and is interpreted differently in different countries, this research aims to provide insight on the same.
The present study's goal isn't just to be descriptive of the Project. The following are the study's aims.
This study might be useful since it would show the reader where aspects of the legislation are in conflict and provide possible solutions.
The research piece is beneficial to young minds since it provides information on every conceivable topic related to occupational freedom and bar dancing. A few examples have also been given to help with comprehension.
The current study is mostly built on the concepts of doctrinal research. Doctrinal research is defined as the process of referring to and studying existing facts, such as laws and statistics. According to the researcher, the current study is strongly reliant on existing norms and how they interact. To undertake successful research on such a topic, it is important to do doctrinal research and examine several pertinent laws now in effect.
The researcher also believes that research techniques should contain secondary and tertiary empirical data to aid in critical analysis of the study subject, rather than being limited to analytical and prescriptive methods. As a result, the researcher believes the current study's instruments are appropriate for the subject.
The researcher uses both primary and secondary data in the current study. The researcher may refer to source data such as the Constitution, Acts, National Policies, judicial decisions, and other non-interpreted information. The researcher uses secondary material to acquire a larger and more unbiased view on the studied subject, such as national and international journals, articles, books by renowned writers, and commentary available on various databases on the internet.
The researcher conducted some research to determine which laws apply in these scenarios. The researcher's references to journals, research articles, and reports are not conclusive in and of themselves; instead, in order to reach a conclusion, the researcher must evaluate the data in light of other relevant factors.
This journal article aims to answer whether animals have rights is an issue that has been debated for a long time has resurfaced, because of a recent uptick in concern for animal rights and the ethical concerns of Consumption of animals and their use in scientific research If animals have rights, the argument for feeding and testing them must be much stronger, especially when better options are available; and people who engage in and support these acts will be progressively chastised. Animal rights probably dont provide vegetarians and animal activists with everything they need, but their extant might undeniably bolster both parties' causes. As a result, arguments demonstrating that animals do have rights are in short supply.
This review of the book Zoopolis considers how animals and people differ qualitatively, and how important is this variation morally? Secondly, the book demonstrates why it is incorrect to compare human victims of racial prejudice and homicide to tortured and slaughtered animals. The key point is that the promise of the book – to develop a political philosophy of animal rights – has yet to be fulfilled.
This article criticises the NhRP's use of the concept of legal personhood and explains how a different interpretation of legal personhood might make nonhuman rights more appealing to courts. Litigations aimed at declaring some animals as legal persons are a relatively new form of animal activism. The Nonhuman Rights Project, based in the United States, is a pioneer in this field (NhRP). The writ of habeas corpus, which protects the right to personal liberty of "persons," has been the organization's primary strategy.
The philosophical debates over animal status have exploded to the point where a review of the literature is overwhelming. The majority of these debates centre on how animals are — or are not — similar to humans and, as a result, should or should not be treated similarly. Animal rights are compared to civil rights for females and people of colour throughout this literature. When drawing comparisons between females and animals, these philosophers overlook the reality that people have long been exploited and disparaged by treating them as animals, perceiving them as animals, and justifying their "inferior" position based on their perceived animality or closeness to animals. This was especially true for women, who have long been connected with nature and animals, especially when it came to procreative and baby bearing tasks. Slaves were purchased, sold, and utilised on plantations in the same way that livestock or oxen were. This was the case with people of colour who, like animals, have been stigmatised as sexually deviant, unethical, or illogical.
1 R.G. Frey, Animal Rights, Vol. 37, Analysis, 186, 186-189 (1977).
Is it conceivable that the presence of oppressed humans and animals in close vicinity is more than a historical happenstance, but rather an intrinsic element of Western concepts of humans and animals? As a result, combating the disparagement of peoples who have been oppressed and revaluing them on their own terms may involve focusing to the human-animal conflict as it has played out in Western thinking heritage.
The focus of this Journal Article is on activists' conversion stories and other activist discourses that include terms like "baptised" or "born-again" that are commonly used in Christian rites of passage. Ritual protest actions are an outward expression of inner experiences of activists who become engaged to civil disobedience for the sake of nature and animals. Radical animal rights and environmental activists are labelled "ecoterrorists" by law enforcement and the media, who accuse them of lacking morals and putting society in jeopardy. These adolescent activists are critical of other teenagers' social rituals and consider radical activity as a rebellious rite. Activists typically attribute their conversion to activism culminating in a protest march or an illegal act of sabotage demonstrating their commitment to animals or the environment, rather than to US legal rules or Christianity, on the other hand, are not unlike the places they had previously rejected or criticised in society.
2 Tine Stein, Human Rights and Animal Rights: Differences Matter, Vol. 40, Historical Social Research, 55, 55-62 (2015).
3 Visa Kurki, Legal Personhood and Animal Rights, Vol. 11, Journal of Animal Ethics, 47, 47-62 (2021)
4 Kelly Oliver, What is wrong with (Animal) Rights, Vol. 22, The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 214, 214-224 (2008)
5 Sarah M. Pike, Radical Animal Rights and Environmental Activism as Rites of Passage, Vol. 27, Journal of Ritual Studies, 35, 35-45 (2013)
The current case consists of two cases, one case challenges the Madras High Court's Division Bench judgement, filed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals which was the TNRJ Act's legality is being questioned, and a few other petitions questioning the legality of the Ministry of Environment and Forests Notification of November 2011, and the other case upholds the validity of the Ministry of Environment and Forests Notification. The AWBI, a statutory Board, took the position before the court that Jallikattu, bull cart races, and other similar events held in Tamil Nadu & Maharashtra, respectively, innately violate the provisions of the PCA Act.(Sec, 3 , 11 and 22)
The AWBI also submitted different studies and research on the behaviour of bulls, as well as reports and images from Jallikattu events, suggesting that when confronted with a threat, they demonstrate a flight-or-fight answer. The research also demonstrate that for purpose of people’s enjoyment, their well-being is jeopardised.
Bulls are purposefully beaten, agitated, and injured by the organisers in order to increase their fright and distress, and they are kept in excruciatingly aching and positions of discomfort for a long time without nutrition.
The debate over bull sports began in 2004 when the SIHL & the Blue Cross petitioned the TN state legislature's Petitions Committee to ban Jallikattu and other bull-based sports. Despite the fact that the single bench had already barred Jallikattu because of cruelty, In another appeal, the Division Bench overruled the prior ruling and allowed Jallikattu to be held under certain conditions.
In this matter, the AWBI has moved to the Supreme Court against the Division Bench's decision, stating that the notification should be implemented, while the Organisers contend that Jallikattu should not be outlawed based on traditions and rituals.
The Uttarakhand High Court, in a first-of-its-kind judgement, applied the 'parens patriae' theory and proclaimed itself the statewide legal guardian for members of the cattle family on August 14, 2018.
As a result, the court becomes a legal guardian for cows and other wandering livestock in Uttarakhand.
Several rulings were issued by Acting Chief Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari of a division bench for the protection of cows in the state.
The panel cited Supreme Court decisions, Upanishads and Arthashastra texts, Jain and Buddhist teachings, and Mahatma Gandhi and the Dalai Lama statements in their decision to emphasise the importance of animal welfare.
Under place of the Government of India's Notification in the previous Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, In execution of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the Ministry of Environment and Forests issued a Notification. According to the Notification, the animals specified in the notification were not permitted to be shown or trained as performing animals. It was impossible for the aforementioned Notification to go unnoticed. The legitimacy of the aforementioned Notification was challenged in the High Court, which maintained it. Meanwhile, the High Court affirmed the constitutional legality of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009, which was challenged in court. The judgements of the High Courts were contested before the current Court, which focused on the case of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja and Ors. PETA has also submitted a writ suit. A uniform decision was used to resolve all of these issues. The current Court has issued certain directives. The Act of 2009 was deemed to be incompatible with the Act of 1960, which is a welfare law, and so declared constitutionally invalid for violating Article 254(1) of the Indian Constitution. As a result, the current petition for review has been filed.
6 Animal Welfare Board Of India vs A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547
7 Alim vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., MANU/UC/0567/2018
8 Chief Secretary to the Govt., Chennai Tamilnadu and Ors. vs. Animal Welfare Board and Ors., MANU/SC/1535/2016
Animal rights is a concept that many or all sentient animals have moral value separate from their utility to people, and that their most fundamental goals—such as avoiding suffering— should be given the same attention as analogous human concerns. "Animal rights" is sometimes used interchangeably with "animal protection" or "animal freedom" in general, and especially in popular discourse. More specifically, "animal rights" refers to the belief that many animals have fundamental rights to be treated with respect as people, including rights to life, liberty, and freedom from torture, which are not outweighed by concerns of collective welfare.
Given how deeply embedded animal products are in nations such as the U.S, giving rights to animals is contentious. Some individuals, particularly animal rights activists, believe animals' rights should have a legal protection and they should be devoid of any sort of abuse. Individuals who rely on animal-based companies for a living are on the other hand, on the opposite end of the spectrum.
The following are some pro-animal-rights viewpoints:
If animal rights were recognised, animal exploitative companies would end, as would the plethora of environmental difficulties they cause, such as water, air and land pollution, emissions of greenhouse gas, and removal of forests.
Stopping Animals would be widely used, putting a stop to the industries that rely on animals institutionalised violence. The physical and mental suffering of animals in industrial farms has attained a height considered unacceptable by many. Animals are mutilated using a number of methods by humans, including slicing off multiple parts of the body without anaesthetic.
CAFOs, as their name implies, jam cramming a huge number of animals into tiny places, leading them to often stand in their own excrement. “Chickens, cows, and pigs, for example, are only subjected to the outside world on their way to the slaughterhouse.” If animal rights were recognized , this abuse would be ended forever.
The following are some con-animal-rights viewpoints:
Most viewpoints which point against strict animal rights may relate to economic factors since animal abuse is a massive business. Industrial farming for products which are obtained from animals is an industry worth multiple billions of dollars. JBS, the world's largest meatpacker, boasted revenue of 9 billion dollars in its third-quarter in 2020.
A lesser-known but equally essential area is the provision of animals for labs. In 2016, the American market for lab rats (which are significantly less common for research than mice) was believed to be worth $412 million. Large-scale animal and animal-product manufacturers use significant political fame in order to influence the law and reap government benefits, such as making it illegal to document farm conditions.
Animal exploitation is a source of money for many people. Industrial farms can handle large numbers of animals while employing a small number of people thanks to mechanisation and other intensive agricultural practises. Smaller farmers with farming families that date to multiple generations are more reliant on animal husbandry for earning but they have been shrinking as a result of the rise of factory farms, with which they usually cannot compete.
India, the world's seventh biggest country is home to a broad range of animals, and animal preservation and care has grown increasingly vital in recent years. The Indian Constitution makes animal protection a fundamental duty, There are a lot of laws in India which are directed towards rights for animals, like the “Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960” and “Wildlife Protection Act 1972”, as well as cattle protection and slaughter of cow bans in the states.
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) is the country's criminal code, where everything related to crimes is covered. Sections 428 and 429 of the IPC make all acts of abuse, like murder, wounding, making animals incapable of anything, etc criminal. The rules described above were adopted to protect animals from unnecessary anguish, and laws similar to the aforementioned ones are continuously being enacted as situations change. In addition to specific legislation, general concepts like tort law, constitutional law, and so forth give further protection for animals.
The “Animal Protection Index” was produced by World Animal Protection. It classifies fifty countries throughout Earth according to legal and policy commitments of the organisation to
protecting and improving animal welfare. Some countries with the highest score are listed down below.
Austria, with an A, is one of the best suited countries for animal rights. According to the Austrian Animal Welfare Act of 2004, The maintenance of animals' well-being should be valued on par with that of humans. With the exception of some hunting and fishing, the legislation outlaws animal suffering, imposition of unjustifiable pain, exposure to extreme fear, and harm. Agricultural animals are likewise covered by the law, with special regulations aimed at their protection. The utilisation of wild animals in entertainment(circus), as well as for farming their fur, is prohibited under the 2004 law. In 2005, the government made it illegal to utilise primates in research.
New Zealand is a global champion in rights for animals, with a grade of A. The “Animal Welfare Act of 1999” and the “Animal Welfare Strategy of 2013” safeguard the rights of animals in New Zealand. These regulations underline the status of New Zealand as a worldwide leader in animal rights and its aim to be on the cutting edge of scientific and technological advances. According to the 1999 statute, animals can feel (meaning they are sentient), this was also included in the 2013 legislation.
In compared to other nations, Switzerland has greater animal protection levels according to international standards. The “Animal Welfare Act of 2005” safeguards animals' rights and regality. Suffering, infliction of pain, injury, or exposure to embarrassment or fear are all prohibited activities that can be appointed as demeaning to the regality of animals. In 2014, World Animal Protection gave the country an A rating.
In the United Kingdom, animal welfare varies from animal conservation. In England & Wales, the “Animal Welfare Act of 2006” is the most modern animal welfare legislation. Cruelty and neglect now carry severe consequences, including a lifetime ban on possessing a pet, a maximum term of 12 months in jail, and fines of up to 20k euros. A pet owner's duty of care
was also established by the Act, which compels the owner to provide for the animal's basic needs. The United Kingdom received an A from World Animal Protection.
Chile's animal welfare policy is codified in Law 20380 of 2009. This law establishes animal welfare concepts, such as animal protection and respect as sentient creatures, as well as the avoidance of unnecessary suffering. Animals in captivity are included by the 2009 law, Farm animals, domestic animals, and wild animals are all included.
Rights for animals are essential because they express a range of arguments that contradict the inaccurate but long-held assumption “animals are nothing more than stupid machines”, a concept popularised by philosopher Rene Descartes in 17th century. The status of animals as beings who can’t think or feel justified their usage for needs of people, which is visible in today's world, where the number farmed mammals greatly out-numbers the wild mammals and a huge number of farmed animals are forced to suffer in deplorable factory farms.
But the research is becoming increasingly clear: the animals we feed, the animals we employ in labs, the beings that provide us with their skin, fur, etc for clothes, and the animals on whom we depend for transport all have greater cognitive complexity, emotions, and overall sophistication than what was believed previously. Animals with this level of complexity are more vulnerable to physical pain as well as the psychological effects of frequent denial of choice. The realisation of their own enslavement is enough to cause them to reconsider how animals are handled in western civilizations.
What about the rights of animals? Animal rights activists are increasingly embracing the view that animals should have certain basic or fundamental rights for themselves. Indeed, the basis of the concept – “animals should not be subjected to unnecessary suffering” – has a lengthy history in human history. The view that animals deserve to have their own rights, which may clash with human interests, is, on the other hand, a new and disputed concept.
Animal rights opponents oppose animal cruelty and have a belief that animals don’t deserved to be tortured. Rather, they are concerned about the implications for humans if other creatures are granted legal rights and benefits. Some believe that in a future where animals have rights, medical development would grind to a stop without experiments conducted on animals, poaching of animals will be forbidden, and vegetarianism will be enforced. Others worry that acknowledging animal rights may diminish society's regard for people's lives. Humans are unlike any other organism on the world, and we are the only ones who can truly have rights.
Dogs, cats, and goldfish are morally, cognitively, and socially different from us. Because, well, we are more important, our interests are more essential. Others are more worried about the scope of such rights. Is it possible that placing a mousetrap may become illegal? Is it possible to go to jail for walking on a spider?
Animal rights campaigners, on the other hand, regard more legal protections for animals as a natural consequence of the rights reforms that have revolutionised society over the last century. While some advocates may relate this with slavery, another picture that is less problematic is that of animals as a commodity that can and should be bought and sold. Animal rights activists believe that no significant progress can be made until animals are given some form of personhood. Secondly, the activists criticise current standards for enforcing current and future protectionist legislation. In conclusion, animals cannot sue to protect themselves, and humans cannot sue on their behalf unless extraordinary conditions exist.
For animals, India is a place of contradictions. It boasts the second-largest number of farmed animals (mainly fish) and vegetarians in the world, the most dairy farms (950 times more than the US) and cow slaughter restrictions, some of the least-enforced animal cruelty regulations, and some of the best constitutional safeguards for animals (every citizen has a duty "to have compassion for living creatures").
Litigating and advocating for the national battery cage ban and other farm animal welfare standards to be implemented. Their dispute was settled in a favourable Supreme Court decision late last year session in which prominent litigators pro gratis supported the chickens' interests. However, more work has to be done in terms of enforcing the legislation..
Advocacy at the grassroots level and capacity building are assisting in the growth of the movement. Some organisations are using leafleting, seminars, and coalition building with local groups to motivate the many Indians who care profoundly about animal welfare. Others are offering training to activists and law enforcement officials to improve their capacity to enforce the laws.
In the massive dairy sector, advocating for animal welfare changes or reductions in the number of animals. This paper is typically enthusiastic about focusing on seafood or poultry, which account for 185 times the number of dairy cows in the United States. However, in India, where there are 300 million cows and buffalos in dairy (compared to only 9 million in the United States), I believe this inclination towards the topic makes sense.